RENTING? Check your LL has permission to let that property.

prudryden

This sticky, which was once fairly good, has descended into a load of fabricated nonsense and moronic ramblings about what is legal or illegal. Let's be sure about one thing - Banks or mortgage companies have not yet been given the right to make laws. A breach of any contract is a civil matter not a criminal matter. So the people that are stating otherwise are destroying the credibility of their own sticky.

franklee

prudryden wrote: »

This sticky, which was once fairly good, has descended into a load of fabricated nonsense and moronic ramblings about what is legal or illegal. Let's be sure about one thing - Banks or mortgage companies have not yet been given the right to make laws. A breach of any contract is a civil matter not a criminal matter. So the people that are stating otherwise are destroying the credibility of their own sticky.

Let's get this thread back on track. It's recommending a tenant asks if a prospective landlord has consent to let.

With consent the tenancy is binding on the landlord's lender and the tenant will get a minimum two months notice in the event of a repossession.

Without consent the tenancy is binding on the tenant but not on the landlord's lender. In such a case the tenant wanting time to move would have to follow the steps in the Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants etc) Act 2010. A link to the Department for Communities and Local Government guidance for this is given in the blog by Painsmith, a top solicitor in the field here:
http://freelegalweb.org/6116/2010/10/guidance-on-tenant-mortgage-protection/

The blog says:

"It is good practice for agents to require landlords to provide them with evidence that the mortgagee has assented to the letting of the property. There is possibly scope for a tenant to seek redress from an agent who has failed to do this. ."

The Department for Communities and Local Government guidance linked to on the blog says:

"10.1 How can a tenant check if their landlord has obtained the necessary consent to let? Professional letting agents should request evidence from a landlord that the property has received consent to let from the landlord’s lender. Letting agents should not market a property for letting if they have not satisfied themselves that this has been obtained. The tenant can request this assurance from their landlord."

An unauthorised tenant's obtaining a delay of the repossession eviction under the new act (from 1 October 2010) isn't automatic, the tenant needs to recognise the notice letters (hoping at least one of the two of them wasn't sent before the tenancy started) and then act quickly to apply for the delay, seeking appropriate advice. Granting the delay isn't automatic but according to Shelter:

"The court will also consider:

* your personal circumstances (eg if anyone in your household is vulnerable and/or if the type of accommodation you need is difficult to find quickly

* whether you have broken any of the terms and conditions of your tenancy (eg if you have rent arrears, have behaved antisocially or have caused damage to the property)

* whether the lender will suffer hardship as a result of delaying the eviction."

Link to Shelter's page, Repossession by a Landlord's lender:
http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/eviction/repossession_by_a_landlords_lender

I think that's pretty clear and to the point.

prudryden

That's better. Your comments have generally been well received and well researched contrary to some others.

new_home_owner_3

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

I'm not an EA. Are you saying that estate agents are asking landlords for proof of their Consent to Let before they let tenants in? Unfortunately that isn't true off all estate agents......yet.



If you practice deception on your insurance application, your insurance is invalid. Failure to disclose information (especially something as important as not having permission to let the property) is also deception. Insurers may not question a policy when you pay them, but they will when you claim. However, it is of no importance to me if your insurance is invalid.



It does make a difference. If you have a fixed term contract, the term of the contract is not honoured by the mortgage lender if the landlord failed to get permission to rent that property. It is an illegal let.



Was that under this username; or one of your other usernames you post under on this site? Perhaps you would post the link where you asked this before and I missed it.

It really doesn't bother me what happens to landlords who get caught by their mortgage lender if they failed to get Consent to Let: it only bothers me what happens to their tenants if the property is repossessed. Tenants need to avoid these type of landlords.




Repeat from top of this post:
I'm not an EA. Are you saying that estate agents are asking landlords for proof of their Consent to Let before they let tenants in? Unfortunately that isn't true off all estate agents......yet.

Thanks for confirming that you also don't have Consent to Let. That's you and Welshwoofs who have just admitted that.

Tenants can now see how many illegal lets there are still out there and how important it is to protect themselves.

frist of all i do have consent and i had to fight tooth and nail to get it, thats why i dont blame anyone thinking of renting not getting consent especially If their lenders going to make it very hard, and hit the with big fees.

MISS MONEYPENNY, you keep on using the word ILLEGAL are you saying a landlord is acting ILLEGALLY if they dont get consnent?

BECAUSE IF YOU ARE YOU ARE CHATTING A WHOLE HEAP OF DING DONG!!!!!

silvercar

franklee wrote:

With consent the tenancy is binding on the landlord's lender and the tenant will get a minimum two months notice in the event of a repossession.

does every lender do this automatically, or would the tenant have to go to court to prove that they have the right to be allowed to remain?

I suspect the big difference is tenancies in their fixed term, where a the tenant would be allowed to see out their fixed term in a with consent situation but may only get 2 months in a non consent situation.

Outside the fixed term, a tenant should always get 2 months, either by S21 notice or by the 2010 Mortgage Repo' act.

Gorgeous_George

'non consent' and the lender can evict as soon as they get a repossession order. A Court would be unlikely to evict a tenant when the house has been let with the lender's consent providing the tenancy met their requirements (such as an AST no longer than one year with some lenders).

GG

franklee

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

'non consent' and the lender can evict as soon as they get a repossession order. A Court would be unlikely to evict a tenant when the house has been let with the lender's consent

Yes that's right, the page from Shelter I linked to gives more details. Essentially, if the tenancy is binding on the lender, the lender needs to get the court order to repossess the property and then they become the landlord and have to evict the tenant under the terms of the tenancy agreement, that may be section 8 etc. Here's that Shelter link again scrolled hopefully to the relevant place, or if not scrolled go to the answer for What are my rights if my tenancy is binding on the lender?:
http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/eviction/repossession_by_a_landlords_lender#2

Obviously being given proper notice under the tenancy and the lender/landlord having to follow all the usual procedures to end the tenancy (even if the notice is only two months) is a lot less stressful for the tenant than the tenant having to intercede in the repossession process by applying to court for a postponement of up to two months under the Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants etc) Act 2010. Using the new act can easily give the tenant timing problems and uncertainty of success as this thread demonstrates:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/42200668#Comment_42200668

The OP in that thread writes about using the Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants etc) Act 2010:

huangdi wrote: »

the issue is the eviction date is 29th. say a hearing was set for next week, it is just too late. it seems a damn shame, as we all have feeling of losing the case already.

if they did lose the case , it would be even shorter notice. the tenants are all looking elsewhere at the moment as they do not have a lot of time left. i know if we did go along, there is a good chance of winning, but not if its going to cost lots of money/time to do so......

That said of course Shelter et al did a grand job getting the Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants etc) Act 2010 through as it's much better than the no rights an unauthorised tenant had before 1 October 2010 even though way before then the usual suspects here were arguing that consent to let didn't matter.

Also to avoid the landlord's lender arguing over consent to let it's always better for the tenant to get important things IN WRITING or ask for and keep copies. Letters can obviously be photocopied but if pushed for time I find a digital camera can easily take a legible picture of a page of text. The Shelter link goes into more details of what to do if a tenant thinks the tenancy is binding and the lender won't confirm it.

Any proof of consent to let asked for before committing to a tenancy needs to be recent so the tenant knows all is OK at the start of the tenancy and that the tenancy is then binding on the lender. Once the tenancy is binding on the lender then the tenant knows the landlord/lender has to follow the correct procedures under the tenancy if they wish it to end.

nnbbwo

To add to the confusion, the landlord could have consent to let and notified the lender of his new address. He may not have amended the title deeds held at land registry.

socrates

nnbbwo wrote: »

To add to the confusion, the landlord could have consent to let and notified the lender of his new address. He may not have amended the title deeds held at land registry.

That has already been stated several times

bobwilson

Okay, it's time someone finally kicked some sense into this thread.. why would you WANT to check whether your landlord has or doesn't have permission for you to be renting the property?

If he doesn't have permission, all you're going to do is end up getting kicked out..! :rotfl:

What possible motive could there be to do this?